The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #136  
Old 03-09-2018, 06:56 PM
frankmcr frankmcr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 5,316
Default

Quote:
it's important that we understand exactly what he is (or is not) saying and don't criticize him for claims he is not making.
Trouble is, we're on page nine of trying to figure out what Mr Powers actually is saying, and what claims he actually is making, and not really getting very close to a consensus yet.

..................

On a separate note - New Coke generated talk. A lot of talk.

People still talk about the Edsel.

So ....
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:15 PM
Rjlipton Rjlipton is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Long Beach In
Posts: 292
Default

Good to see so many other physicists on the forum. It is also nice to see actual measurements of the frequency responses of the struck body and plucked strings.

I tried a new v braced presentation series guitar last weekend. I was too timid to pull out my phone and make a direct comparison to the spectrum a similar older taylor. I did like the sound, similar to my cedar topped 716ce.

The v brace hype is the work the Taylor marketing team. I can imagine the meeting where they discuss “how do we sell this?” And deciding that it would be easiest to redefine intonation. I am willing to cut Andy Powers some slack as a good employee following the company line. It seems to me that he was a little bit defensive in the long note.

Please the quantum double slit experiment has nothing to do with thus discussion. There is no question about the phenomenon. Lifetimes can be spent discussing the implications. I dont care what google says.
__________________
Ron

Martin D28 (1988)
Guild JF30
Voyage Air MD-02
Collings D1
Bourgeois vintage OM
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:35 PM
rogthefrog's Avatar
rogthefrog rogthefrog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgraveline View Post
Easy to see who doesn’t feel comfortable in this thread that some guitar builder for Taylor might have greater knowledge than they do.

Andy laid it all out there, for sure. Any one claiming “marketing bs” has less of a claim. Now I just hope they sound as good as the effort and science that went into them.
That's the funny thing about all the hand-wringing over this.

Taylor makes well over 100,000 guitars a year. They have designed and implemented the most advanced guitar manufacturing techniques in the industry. They are extraordinarily methodical. They can spend unlimited amounts on R&D. They have a few years' worth of tone improvements to show for Andy Powers's involvement in their guitar designs. They've been working on this for months, and probably years. They are staking their reputation and success, to the tune of hundreds of millions of $USD, on this bracing redesign.

But obviously random dudes on a forum who've spent 10 minutes reading marketing materials totally, absolutely, unequivocally know better.

It's hilarious.

Whether or not you like Taylor guitars, their tone, their playability, their marketing, Andy Powers's innovations, their "sterile" or "perfect" manufacturing, their use of computer-aided tools; whether Andy Powers has a physicist's understanding of sound and wood; none of this matters. Almost nobody on AGF is actually qualified to evaluate or denigrate these new changes outside of "they sound better/worse/the same to me." Everything else is bloviating.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HHP View Post
V Brace in a nutshell.

Not just the V-brace! I recognize a few AGF commenters around it.
__________________
Solo acoustic guitar videos:
This Boy is Damaged - Little Watercolor Pictures of Locomotives - Ragamuffin
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:54 PM
rogthefrog's Avatar
rogthefrog rogthefrog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picker2 View Post
Stating that body resonances interfere with the 'in-tune-ness' of a guitar, like Taylor does, is like stating that the bass drum in a band interferes with the notes produced by the piano. (Hey, that's a good one! I'm gonna put it in a bold font. )
.... it does. Why would we waste time tuning the drum head if it didn't?

Sound waves from the bass drum (when hit, or when excited by waves from the piano being played) combine with the sound waves from the piano, and the audible results are different based on how the drum is tuned (assuming the piano is constant).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picker2 View Post
Whoa, what is that??
__________________
Solo acoustic guitar videos:
This Boy is Damaged - Little Watercolor Pictures of Locomotives - Ragamuffin
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:09 AM
Erithon's Avatar
Erithon Erithon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,207
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
Ahhhh... I see the problem.

Your wrong.

Check 4.7.2 in your copy of Contemporary Acoustic Guitar Design and Build by Gore and Gilet.
Hey now, that's not a very constructive way to communicate. If you believe someone else to be in error, that's awesome--and the only way we'll generate a dialogue--but rather than just pointing it out, it would advance the conversation if you were to upload an image of section 4.7.2 or type out the relevant quote since, for some bizarre reason, other AGF members keep recalling the copy of Contemporary Acoustic Guitar Design and Build I had checked out from the library
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:17 AM
TD2 TD2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 160
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthefrog View Post
That's the funny thing about all the hand-wringing over this.

Taylor makes well over 100,000 guitars a year. They have designed and implemented the most advanced guitar manufacturing techniques in the industry. They are extraordinarily methodical. They can spend unlimited amounts on R&D. They have a few years' worth of tone improvements to show for Andy Powers's involvement in their guitar designs. They've been working on this for months, and probably years. They are staking their reputation and success, to the tune of hundreds of millions of $USD, on this bracing redesign.

But obviously random dudes on a forum who've spent 10 minutes reading marketing materials totally, absolutely, unequivocally know better.

It's hilarious.

Whether or not you like Taylor guitars, their tone, their playability, their marketing, Andy Powers's innovations, their "sterile" or "perfect" manufacturing, their use of computer-aided tools; whether Andy Powers has a physicist's understanding of sound and wood; none of this matters. Almost nobody on AGF is actually qualified to evaluate or denigrate these new changes outside of "they sound better/worse/the same to me." Everything else is bloviating.

Yep. Every Taylor thread seems to turn into a tangle of posts from the usual Taylor haters. Taylor could give these guys a million bucks and they'd complain that they had to pay taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:49 AM
Picker2 Picker2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belluno, Italy
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthefrog View Post
.... it does. Why would we waste time tuning the drum head if it didn't?

Sound waves from the bass drum (when hit, or when excited by waves from the piano being played) combine with the sound waves from the piano, and the audible results are different based on how the drum is tuned (assuming the piano is constant).
OK. Fair enough. Although I actually meant a bass drum stuffed with a blanket (very low Q). But if anyone believes a bass drum stuffed with a blanket always interferes with a piano to such an extent that the piano seems to be out of tune, well, then I understand what Andy says.

However, that brings us immediately to the next (and probably more important) question: you can tune a drumhead by turning a bunch of screws. But how does V-bracing tune the guitar top? This was never explained by Taylor. It was only stated that the top moves more orderly, that the vibrations are more limited to sideways motion etc. But how does this tune the guitar top, systematically and principally, for every single V-braced factory-built guitar? Now THAT’s what I would like to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthefrog View Post
Whoa, what is that??
Grafted walnut. American Walnut trunk with a European Walnut branch grafted into it. Wait a 100 years and the branch is big enough to build a guitar from. Cool huh? But don’t order such a guitar when you’re in a hurry .
__________________

Last edited by Picker2; 03-10-2018 at 12:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:57 AM
jessupe jessupe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Marin Co.Ca.
Posts: 721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjlipton View Post
Good to see so many other physicists on the forum. It is also nice to see actual measurements of the frequency responses of the struck body and plucked strings.

I tried a new v braced presentation series guitar last weekend. I was too timid to pull out my phone and make a direct comparison to the spectrum a similar older taylor. I did like the sound, similar to my cedar topped 716ce.

The v brace hype is the work the Taylor marketing team. I can imagine the meeting where they discuss “how do we sell this?” And deciding that it would be easiest to redefine intonation. I am willing to cut Andy Powers some slack as a good employee following the company line. It seems to me that he was a little bit defensive in the long note.

Please the quantum double slit experiment has nothing to do with thus discussion. There is no question about the phenomenon. Lifetimes can be spent discussing the implications. I dont care what google says.
Just so we are clear, some folks here have a tendency to either skim read, misread or just not read what was written.

I brought up the double slit experiment because as I wrote " when the experiment is done with SOUND WAVES" and or two sources instead of two slits" ,and not light, we get constructive and deconstructive interference which imo is pertinent to the conversation as various pole phases in body motion act as localized drivers which gives rise to the possibilty of either constructive or deconstructive frequency interactions within vibration patterns.

Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:10 AM
Picker2 Picker2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belluno, Italy
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjlipton View Post
Please the quantum double slit experiment has nothing to do with thus discussion. There is no question about the phenomenon. Lifetimes can be spent discussing the implications. I dont care what google says.
Funny this was mentioned. As a complete off-topic remark: I also have an opinion about this, which will stir up traditional scientists ten times worse than the folks here on the AGF in relation to V-bracing! In a nutshell:

- Michaelson & Morley were wrong
- Photons don’t exist, light has no dualistic character
- The universe moves at the speed of light.

The above three points solve the whole double slit discussion too, and also the Einstein Rosen Paradox. I’ll give a 90 minute lecture about this in Glastonbury, this summer. It’s going to be fun.

OK, back on topic now. AP and V-bracing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:15 AM
robj144 robj144 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 10,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessupe View Post
Just so we are clear, some folks here have a tendency to either skim read, misread or just not read what was written.

I brought up the double slit experiment because as I wrote " when the experiment is done with SOUND WAVES" and or two sources instead of two slits" ,and not light, we get constructive and deconstructive interference which imo is pertinent to the conversation as various pole phases in body motion act as localized drivers which gives rise to the possibilty of either constructive or deconstructive frequency interactions within vibration patterns.

Correct, but I made the point that this is simply interference of two waves. The reason the double slit experiment is important because it can demonstrate wavelike and particle like phenomena.

You don't need a double slit to talk about wave mechanics.
__________________
Guild CO-2
Guild JF30-12
Guild D55
Goodall Grand Concert Cutaway Walnut/Italian Spruce
Santa Cruz Brazilian VJ
Taylor 8 String Baritone
Blueberry - Grand Concert
Magnum Opus J450
Eastman AJ815
Parker PA-24
Babicz Jumbo Identity
Walden G730
Silvercreek T170
Charvell 150 SC
Takimine G406s
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:44 AM
Picker2 Picker2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belluno, Italy
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessupe View Post
...is done with SOUND WAVES" and or two sources instead of two slits" ,and not light, we get constructive and deconstructive interference which imo is pertinent to the conversation as various pole phases in body motion act as localized drivers which gives rise to the possibilty of either constructive or deconstructive frequency interactions within vibration patterns.
Yes. The “phase and interference” argument was also brought up a few times by Taylor. Most modes of self-resonance of a guitar top have different parts of the top vibrate in opposite phases. For example, every time the bottom half moves inwards, the top half moves outwards. This means that the sound wave emerging from the bottom half is always half a wavelength out of phase with the sound wave created by the top half. As a result, these two waves cancel each other out, which could - in theory - result in complete silence for that particular frequency. In practice, the interference is one of the components that shapes the guitar’s top response.

It is also one of the reasons why it’s so hard making a good audio recording of an acoustic guitar. Different parts of the sound come from different positions, so it’s as if the sliders of your equalizer make random jumps every time you move your microphone.

However, I fail to see how this fits into the Taylor in-tune-ness story. The only way to reduce this interference effect, is to make sure the top can only move in and out as a whole. That’s the low E string. Higher notes will always cause bipolar modes and higher, along with the inherent interference effects. V-bracing will definitely modify the response curve, and hence the tone, but I see no reason whatsoever why this would improve “in-tune-ness”.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-10-2018, 03:08 AM
gitarro gitarro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,510
Default

This is wonderful. Who would have thought that Taylor v bracing would lead to einstein and quantum physics and the dualistic nature of light being discussed???

I reckon that to solve the grand unified theory problem, Taylor needs to release the Z class bracing next year an d say how it is even better than v class bracing at intonation LOL
__________________
In the end it is about who you love above yourself and what you have stood for and lived for that make the difference...
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-10-2018, 03:20 AM
Picker2 Picker2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belluno, Italy
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogthefrog View Post
Almost nobody on AGF is actually qualified to evaluate or denigrate these new changes outside of "they sound better/worse/the same to me." Everything else is bloviating.
This is an interesting remark. If what you say is true for the ‘guitar gearheads’ here on the AGF, it will be even more so for the other 90% of ‘normal’ guitarists. This immediately brings up the question: why did Taylor not simply set up their Marketing campaign along the same lines? “We introduce V-bracing and we love it! Come try it out”. This was exactly my point in my very first V-bracing post here on the AGF. Instead, Taylor chose the “bloviating” approach, and then you tell us on the AGF we’re not allowed to respond to it.

No offense, I love these V-bracing threads. The best threads on the AGF in a long time!
__________________

Last edited by Picker2; 03-10-2018 at 03:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-10-2018, 03:21 AM
Picker2 Picker2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Belluno, Italy
Posts: 1,414
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gitarro View Post
This is wonderful. Who would have thought that Taylor v bracing would lead to einstein and quantum physics and the dualistic nature of light being discussed???

I reckon that to solve the grand unified theory problem, Taylor needs to release the Z class bracing next year an d say how it is even better than v class bracing at intonation LOL
LOL
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-10-2018, 04:41 AM
jessupe jessupe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Marin Co.Ca.
Posts: 721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Picker2 View Post
This is an interesting remark. If what you say is true for the ‘guitar gearheads’ here on the AGF, it will be even more so for the other 90% of ‘normal’ guitarists. This immediately brings up the question: why did Taylor not simply set up their Marketing campaign along the same lines? “We introduce V-bracing and we love it! Come try it out”. This was exactly my point in my very first V-bracing post here on the AGF. Instead, Taylor chose the “bloviating” approach, and then you tell us on the AGF we’re not allowed to respond to it.

No offense, I love these V-bracing threads. The best threads on the AGF in a long time!
Right , because you never know when an E8 quasicrystals 432 verdi tuned 4 D projection displays that dark is information and faster than light, blocked information is information, just ask a holographic voxelated projection...or taylor

you know it's funny, I was reading articles the other day about this Dutch physicist who apparently did stints on "Baywatch" , has interesting theories, the real funny thing is you're that Dutch physicist , the crop circle guy, cool beans dude...

the gravitron wave that came by, it's F sharp , check it on your tuner at 432, surely it means AP is wrong
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > General Acoustic Guitar Discussion

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=